Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-02-10

second, day OF tile ford-Ryan cOntempi
case hearing, before the chancellor, was
taken up In hearing testimony OF employees
of the Jessup Il Moore Company. The wit
nesses placed on the stand were Joseph &
Foreman, Isaac p. Foreman, William W.
Pritchett, John Saunders, John @. Saun-
ders and David Ranek. Their testimony
went to the befouling of the water and the
presumption, inthe absence of other explic-
able sources, that this was caused by the
refuse from the morocco factory. The elder
Saunders testified that, since this factory
was started, they had been obliged to use
as much as $lS worth OF bleaching powder
In one day TO clarity the water.
Me-. Pritehett had, at the request OF
counsel, collected samples OF water, on
January 2Ist, from Silver Brook both above
and below the factory. The former were
pure, the latter much discolored. The
samples were not exhibited, counsel for de-
PENDANT admit ng the purity OF the water
above the factory.
The junior Saunders, son OF the superln
tendent Of the pulp works, testified that the
water at the pump house was very bad on
the night Of January 18th. On Friday, 2lst,
the water began again to get black. On the
next Monday It began to get little better I;
on Tuesday II got worse again on Wednes-
day he did not notice 1t, on Friday 1t began
TO get better. He estimated the longest time
water would take In coming down from the
morocco factory to the pulp works at Is
hours; the speed of the flow being de-
pendent oD tide, wind, storms, &c. When
the foul water reached the pulp works it
might stay there through two tides.
David NJ. Ranck, who has charge Of the
steam pump at the pulp works, testified
that the polluted water caused great foam
Ing In the boilers, so that they had to blow
them out and start over again. Because Of
this foaming they could not tell from the
gauge where the water level was aud had
| to exercise great care to avert danger.
| Muddy water would also cause foaming, but
| the difference between this and muddy
water was readily discerned. He found the
/ water very bad on the night Of the 18th !;
had trouble agRin on the night Of the 10Th,
and on the 2lst it was worse than he bad
| ever seen Ii; on the 18th it was little bit
| lighter.
While the younger Saunders was on the
stand he stated THAT III October last he had
| Inspected the stream at the morocco works
until, approaching too near, he Ind been
| ordered of by MIR. Ryan. He saw at that
time the mouths OF three pipes coming
| from the factory and one from a cess-pool
above. There was black water running
| out of one OF these pipes. There was n we'll
In the lot adjoining the brewery and an
l-''. factory,
Eh5y were pumping, WITH s'eam pump,
TIL rft 1t.'- M "a NH biWl %
600 feet away, Ehe refuse discharged thus
gu the plowed ground at the hill top was
running down from the plowed ground into
the surrounding grass and through the
| grass under the fence Into the factory yard
whore he could see 1t for half way across
The yard and to within IS feet of Silver
Brock, but what became of 1t beyond that
| point he could not say.
The plaintiffs closed during the afternoon
u M hn MI FtllF
Patrick Walsh, who did plumbing work at
the morocco factory ut intervals since July,
| was questioned and cross-questioned Mt
length regarding the pipes, Se. of which
Saunders spoke. He said that the end lengths
Of tho three pipes referred 10 were taken
| out about the middle OF December and he
knew positively that there was now no con-
nection whatever between the factory and
brook except through the water closet pine,
into which It was simply impossible for the
| factory refuse TO got. He Was very sure
| also that the refuse discharged on tina
| plowed ground could not get back into The
stream, being prevented from so doing by
a trench, and, at the times ne mad seen It,
| the refuse had never reached the trench.
| Witness was very closely questioned re-
gardlng dlsused drain starting near the
etstern and apparently running nowhere
| he had dug down and found the mouth OF
| IL had never bean connected with the els
| tern, while the other end stopped short oil
| the stream and had never been even soiled
| by any discharge.
Henry A. Miller OF the plumbing firm Of
Jeubip4 y Miller was NIX. calei 10 the
stnut, hut he had never examined these
! drains.
Counsel for defsnee MIR. Spruance} tiiar
| called Peter ]. Ford TO tho stand.
Willard salisbury, IT,, Of opposing coun,
sci, ohiectai to Mr. Ford being sworn, OF
tho ground that this was IN part n criminal
procedure, and there il no statute permit.
| ting the accused lncrmtnal cases to testify
Mr., SpruHnce vehemeptly insisted on Mr.
| Foris being permitted TO take the stand
| He had never been more amaZAd In his pro
| fessional career than ut the objection to tbs
admissioility of this testimony. After the
other side had prup1undsd carefully inter
rogatories to these accused men, In which
| they had sought to hriug ont all that would
tend to condemn mud to avoid any dis.
closures that would tend 10 excuse, arethey
to say that these men shall not utter another
| word Such a procedure seemed to him
! patfecrly horrible 10 its Injustice. In the
name Of GOD, how Is the conscience Of the
| chancellor 10 he informed nuder such cir.
| cumstanees
Counsel for plaintiff replied that it was
| late In the day to talk about these mems
mouths being closed. Before this case was
called they had ample opportunity to file
aitidavits setting forth all that they desired
| They declined 10 do this; compelling
plaintiffs TO grope in the dark in the fran.
Ing OF their heterogeneous. The plaintiffs
| had not sought to curtail the responses ia
| these heterogeneous. They were willing Ia
| give these men broad latitude in answering
and when their answers had been checked
| the check had come from their own counsel
not from the plaintiff. Authorities on the
distinction between civil aud criminal
| peadings were also cited and 1t was held
that in this case the accused were now
drbarred from taking the stand.
The plaintiff offered to withdraw OBJ
lection to placing defendants on the
stand provided the defence would grant
them, IN return, the privilege of intro
ducing testimony in rebuttal.
Defendants counsel having re-examined
the responses TO the plaintiffs interroga
tories and found them more full than
they had thought, finally withdrew theii
offer to place Messrs Ford and RYAN or
the stand, and closed with the introduce
ton of some documentary evidence. Nc
decision was therefore rendered on the
admissability of the proposed testimony
but the chancellor indicated that he was
inclined to the opinion that the defend.
ants had not the right to testify.
The hearing was then adjourned TO the
chaneellor's residence, where argument
was heard later in the evening; Willard
saulsbury, ESQ, opening for the State
followed by q. NJ. Curtis and w. O.
Spruance, Esqs., for the defence, L. G.
Bradford, ESD, closing for the State,
The chancellor reserved his decision.
------=-s.- -